Progressive Christianity & The Battle for the Bible (Part 1)

So we're gonna begin lesson number 13, this is the final lesson in the book, although we might

stretch it out for a week or two, maybe even three but It's titled

the battle for the Bible faithful believers in the face of

Modernism, so we're gonna be talking about what is called liberal Christianity

sometime well today it would be called Progressive Christianity and that's in

comparison to Fundamentalism so you have fundamentalism

Liberalism and then there's another term Modernism, so we're gonna be talking about all sorts of different

men going back to the 1800s then into the 1900s men

like BB Warfield CI Schofield Dwight Moody and Billy

Graham and I don't know if it goes beyond Billy Graham.

But that's the name that I saw at least as far as the most modern name, but probably won't get

to Graham in the 1950s and 1960s this week so the

key passage is 2nd Timothy 3 16 and 17 which a lot of people

have these memorized, but this is key verse on the inspiration and

authority of the scripture.

Paul writes all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine

reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be complete

Thoroughly equipped for every good work.

So what's the problem here?

That's being addressed basically?

Christians that don't believe the Bible.

Even pastors and churches and seminaries that don't believe the Bible is true.

Now what's the obvious kind of problem or maybe the gut reaction to hearing that?

If somebody says well, I'm a Christian, but I don't believe the Bible.

I mean, that's a Self contradictory statement really.

I mean, how can how can you be a Christian and not believe the Bible?

But this this is what a lot of people want and you're gonna find this is true today.

Even in some segments of so -called evangelical Christianity.

And this is just gonna be more and more true as time goes on.

There's people they they want religion.

They want their church experience.

They want to be Called to have the title of Christian, but they they don't want them.

They see the Bible as a problem.

Because the Bible refutes evolution.

The Bible tells people How they should live and you know people want to do whatever they want to do.

So they what they want Christianity without without the Bible.

All right, so I'm just gonna read this first paragraph and then we'll get into some discussions.

The number one the Bible comes under attack in the 17th and 18th centuries the

philosophical underpinnings of Europe began to shift the rise of Rationalism

which emphasized human reason and empiricism which focused on the

scientific method began to replace the religious traditionalism that had been

prevalent throughout the Middle Ages.

This shift is known as the Enlightenment or the Age of Reason at the

outset.

This movement was primarily led by Christian philosophers and scientists

and that would be Christian scientists.

But as soon soon became dominated by those who claimed that the Bible should be

discarded armed with reason and science some Enlightenment thinkers

openly questioned the inspiration authority and accuracy of

the Word of God.

These skeptics challenged the veracity of Scripture they denied the biblical accounts of

supernatural events arguing that miracles were either legends or

Coincidences that could be explained as the result of natural causes.

I'll just stop there for a second and.

And I remember years ago When I first started, you know getting serious about

reading the Bible.

I wanted to learn as much as I could so I I Would watch those History Channel

specials about you know the Bible uncovered or whatever they called it, you know

and Those History Channel specials on Christianity in the Bible all they

did and sometimes there were network things that came out around Easter all they did was just

attack the Bible in the name of Christianity some of the people on there.

So, you know, they would explain that the plagues in Egypt were really.

It really wasn't miraculous it wasn't anything supernatural they were just yeah coincidences it just

kind of happened like that and You know people back then were superstitious.

So they attributed it to God.

So and that's I've come to realize, you know a while ago that

anything on television.

That that's what you're gonna get on TV.

So you you expect though to come to a church and hear the truth in a church?

Okay, you expect that from TV, but in a church you should hear the truth, but obviously living in New

England.

You know, that's really not the case you have to find the right church where they actually

have it in their statement of faith that we believe the Scripture is true.

So it says continuing.

They also denied the original authorship of many parts of the scripture.

For instance, they asserted that Moses did not write the first five books the Pentateuch.

And they taught that the Gospels were not historical accounts of the life of Jesus.

This attack on the trustworthiness of the Bible caused some professing Christians to question

whether Scripture should be regarded as the foundation for the Christian faith.

Some argued the basis for Christianity should be found in feelings of

dependence on God.

Others looked to social activism and the church's influence in

society.

So who would be have you ever encountered?

Someone or a group instead of following the Bible they They really are led

more about by feelings.

Who would that apply to I?

Would argue that one to be fair most every charismatic I've ever met

Pentecostals charismatics, they will say that the Bible is true.

I've never met one that denies the authority of Scripture, but I do find that instead of following the Bible they

do tend to follow.

You know experience feelings emotions.

Revelations and words of knowledge or something that comes from outside of the Bible or that they claim to

get directly from God.

So I do think there's a little truth to that anyone else.

Ray.

Quakers, yeah.

Well, I don't know that much about the Quakers.

But I know for sure that the shakers and I know there is a little bit of a connection there.

They looked for salvation within.

So they really weren't following the scripture.

So yeah, this might apply to Quakers and shakers and groups like that that it was

all about looking within.

Christ is within you so it became.

You know.

Your feelings how you feel what you think about Christ is the authority instead of what Scripture says.

Anyone else.

Okay, those are some good responses.

As far as those groups that look to to social activism.

What's that called?

Yeah.

Social justice or the social gospel.

I think of Martin Luther King jr. Is probably the most well -known Person that was

involved in this may Martin Luther King jr.

Because I know if anyone even perceives you might be saying something critical.

They're gonna you know assume the worst so let me just say he did a lot of

great things with the Civil rights movement and we can be thankful for the

end of segregation and all the rest.

But you know how he was portrayed.

He was the Reverend Martin Luther King jr.

Even though in his writings He denied the deity of Christ.

He denied the resurrection of Christ.

He denied the virgin birth of Christ and If you look at all of his

sermons, he's one of the most documented Individuals of the 20th centuries, you cannot find one

single sermon where he actually preaches the biblical gospel.

But what was that?

It was activism.

And again, you can appreciate some of the good things that came out of that but it

wasn't biblical Christianity and now you have that today with you know, The Reverend Al

Sharpton the Reverend Jesse Jackson.

It's activism.

It's social justice.

But they're not actually in a church preaching Salvation from sin, right?

Like that's that's not their message.

It's one of social justice.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah, and from what I understand the men that I mentioned don't

believe the the actual gospel but there are people that They would say they believe

that the biblical gospel of salvation from sin.

But they yes, they do put activism ahead.

That's the main message.

And that's really what I don't know half of the churches in New England I would say it's it's a social gospel.

Not not the biblical gospel of salvation in Christ.

So, you know, this congregation is probably pretty familiar with this because you you hear it.

But a lot of people aren't aware of it if you grew up in one of these churches, that's all you would know.

All you know is what you hear.

So Unless you're reading the Bible for yourself, which I mean you should figure it out.

But anyways to continue This let's see as a result a new

category emerged in church history.

This is the category of liberal Christianity or theological liberalism

broadly speaking liberalism rejected the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture and

Redefined the church's mission in terms of things like social activism by the

early 20th century.

Theological liberalism was prevalent in both Europe and the United States in addition to

rejecting number one the inerrancy of Scripture.

Many proponents of liberalism also denied number two the deity of Christ.

Number three, they denied the miracles recorded in the Bible number four.

They denied the Substitutionary atonement of Christ's death on the cross and number

five.

They denied the bodily Resurrection and I've talked before

about back in the 1940s 50s 60s where you know, this church was

part of the Congregationalist denomination, but the denomination said to the

preachers Don't preach on the blood of Christ and they were removing the hymns from the

hymn book.

Where we would sing about the you know, the power of the blood so they were Telling the

churches do not we don't believe that do not preach on that.

So this church left the Congregationalist denomination became independent but

now today.

You really have two competing Forms of Christianity, I mean one is

apostate and one has you know, we're trying to remain faithful to the scriptures.

So this is theological Liberalism any questions on that

who is not aware of this.

Who is not aware of this growing up.

Who learn who learned this maybe later on in life?

Yeah.

Okay, so maybe about half.

Yeah, so the thing is you're not gonna know unless Unless yeah, the pastor talks about

it or you're hearing it from someone else.

I mean, how would you know?

So in response to these attacks Bible believe in Christians from various

Protestant denominations.

So this would be Baptist Presbyterians Methodists and more banded together to

defend the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith.

And.

It says in the 1920s these Christians became known as.

What?

Fundamentalist.

Okay.

Now when you hear that word Fundamentalist, what's the first thing that comes to mind?

Crackpots.

There are some fundamentalists who are crackpots.

That's true.

There are some liberals who are crackpots.

There are crackpots in every group.

But yes.

Okay,.

Jerry Falwell.

Religious extremists.

Legalism.

Okay.

Yeah, right.

Right and that's what it says here in the 1920s these Christians became known as fundamentalist because

They believed in the fundamental truths of the scriptures.

So in that sense by that definition a Fundamentalist is just another word for a

Bible believe in Christian.

So here's what here's what we need to know.

There are really two types of liberals and there are two types of fundamentalists.

The the two types of liberals are one The the obvious liberals who'd

say the Bible's not true.

We don't believe in the miracles.

Jesus didn't rise from the dead I mean that is a Definite theological liberal, but there's

another type of liberalism where a Church a pastor they

might believe the right things on paper.

Like if you looked at the church's doctrinal statement, you'd be like, oh, yeah, I agree with that but what

they preach And their practice is totally different.

So this is becoming really common.

So again, they believe the right things technically on paper, but What they say

seems to contradict what they believe and then they just end up talking out of both sides of their mouths.

So they're trying to please everybody.

I mean, that would be a different form of liberalism.

But likewise, there's two types of fundamentalists.

There are the fundamentalists who yeah, they just believe the fundamental Basics of Christianity, they're

just Bible believing Christians.

No big deal.

But then there there is the bad type of fundamentalist like maybe Barb says the crack the crack

pots where here's my perception of it just I could mention a few

names, but it's not necessarily helpful here, but There they

basically fight with everybody.

You they can have fellowship with another pastor and agree with them on 99

but if there's one difference, I mean they'll get nasty.

They'll yell and shout and scream and break fellowship over any little thing.

I Heard a one pastor he Someone took a different

position on the rapture.

So instead of being pre trib, they were post trip.

No, he's not saved Over that he agreed with everything else they agreed with but

because they had a different view of the rapture.

I Don't even think you're a Christian anymore.

I mean, that's pretty radical in my mind.

But yeah, this is the bad type of fundamentalists where I mean they will fight anyone

even themselves.

With the drop of a hat over any little thing.

Yeah.

Yeah, I mean those people might actually fit because I you know me I don't like this idea of

calling other Christians Pharisees and legalists.

I don't think that's a good thing in general, but there are some people who actually do.

Sort of fit that description.

Yeah, and if you're a part if anyone has ever been a part of a church like that.

If if you step out of line even one, I mean you can get kicked out of the church like

that.

Or at least it would be threatened like that.

Whereas a church that really believes in in grace.

Yeah, someone might actually commit a very serious offense.

But they're given a chance to repent and they're not actually looking for a fight.

They're not actually looking to boot people out over every little thing so, I mean thankfully

I've never been part of that, but.

They do exist and Seems that yeah, some of you might know from from experience.

It's a pretty rare thing these days at least in this region, but it does exist.

So all that to say there's a good type of fundamentalism.

Or you just believe the basics of the faith and then there's the bad type.

Okay, so these people became now let's turn to Jude the book of Jude.

Now I do want to add there is something to be said about fighting for the faith.

Jude is a book about contending earnestly or fighting

for the faith and here in the book it says yes, these Christians became known as

Fundamentalists and they were willing to earnestly contend for the faith and notice they

came from not only the Baptists because Baptists tend to be oh, yeah, that's the way the Baptists are.

But notice in the book it says there were Methodists like this.

There were Presbyterians.

So it wasn't just the Baptists every denomination has.

Really every denomination has their liberals and their fundamentalists.

In the bigger the denomination the bigger the divide.

But is fighting for the faith biblical.

Well, it is but of course you have to do it Biblically.

Jude.

Let's just read the first few verses in the book of Jude.

Jude a bondservant of Jesus Christ and brother of James to those who are called

sanctified by God the Father and preserved in Jesus Christ.

Mercy peace and love be multiplied to you beloved.

I was very diligent to write to you Concerning our common salvation, but I found it

necessary to write to you.

Exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith, which was once for all

delivered to the Saints.

Why because certain men have crept in unnoticed who long ago were marked out for this

condemnation.

Ungodly men who turned the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the

only Lord God and our.

Lord.

Jesus Christ, so You notice that Jude wanted to write a happy

positive epistle saying, you know, I'm a we're all Christians.

Let's talk about our common faith and how wonderful everything is.

But he he realized the seriousness of the moment.

It's like I wanted to write a letter like that, but I found it necessary to You know

exhort you to stir you up that you you need to fight for the faith because they were in a dire

situation because these men Crept in unnoticed.

Who are these men?

Well, he goes on to talk about I mean basically apostates and false teachers, so.

Again there's a good type of fighting for the faith.

There's a bad type of fighting for the faith.

Okay, so The good type I would argue is what we went through last

year where the church is banded.

There was a clear Movement of false teaching that people were trying to

bring into churches and the churches finally banded together and said no.

We're not going to allow you to do that.

So that was a good type of fighting for the faith.

We were doing what Jude said to do.

The bad type would be if I'm pre millennial and I find out you know one of

our Churches that we used to fellowship now.

They're all millennial and we're gonna condemn them because you know.

We have this difference and we're gonna fight them because they have this difference in theology.

Well, I might disagree and I might feel strongly about what I believe is true.

But you don't want to be fighting other churches on you know, what we might call those secondary

Secondary issues, even though I think that's actually a very important issue.

But I'm not willing to break fellowship over something like that.

If you deny the deity of Christ that I'll break fellowship over.

If you serve communion, you know.

Once every week as opposed to once.

I like that that's not something to divide over how often to serve communion or Even

baptism by sprinkling.

I have very strong views on that.

I'm a Baptist in that sense but I believe Presbyterians and some

reformed people who?

Baptize babies as much as I disagree with that.

I think they Really love the Lord and they're convinced of their position.

So Yeah, the bad type of fundamentalism is you're just fighting with everybody and

you don't want to do that Any questions so far?

Do you agree?

Okay.

Yeah, so Jude goes on and he talks about the issues of his day and you know.

The things that he was going through we're going through them now.

So back to the book and I don't I think this is in my book and not yours.

But it says in this lesson, we will survey the ideological battle that took place

in the early 20th century especially in the United States between the theological

Liberals who the book calls the modernists as opposed to the Bible believing

Fundamentalists.

Okay, who's familiar with this term modernism?

Okay, so in this sense modernism and liberalism are being used

interchangeably.

But there's there's different degrees.

Okay?

So the discussion question, let's look again at 2nd Timothy 3 16 and 17.

Just go back there or you know, if you have it Memorized or you're pretty well

Fixed on what it says you don't have to turn there.

What does the Bible claim for itself based on this passage, what does the Bible claim

for itself?

Okay.

Okay, so the first claim the Bible makes for itself is that it is

inspired of God and That doesn't mean inspired in the sense that

you know, I went to a concert and the music was so I just felt inspired.

I mean I get inspired every once in a while to do something.

This means something very different though.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Yes all Scripture is inspired not parts.

Not only the things Jesus said but the rest of it isn't.

No all the scripture is inspired.

And it's important to point out that at this time A lot of the New Testament had been written

at this point, but Paul I Would say first and foremost Paul's Bible

would have been the Old Testament scriptures.

So, you know the guys like Andy Stanley who want to detach Unhitch from the Old Testament and kind of set,

you know, the Old Testament is kind of extreme.

We don't believe.

No Paul says it's all Inspired which means God breathed.

It is the very word of Almighty God.

All of it Marcus.

That was not always the case prior to the accepted canon of

scripture that we have.

The 66 books there were scriptures at one time.

That were not and I heard that the Greek.

Greek.

Translation of this all scripture that is inspired is profitable.

Yeah.

Okay.

So you're saying the construction of the Greek implies that it's saying all the scripture

that is inspired is.

Okay, I've heard that.

Okay, I've never heard that.

I'll take your word for it.

Okay Yeah.

Yes.

Yeah.

Yeah, if you're ever in a church where they're talking about the Old Testament God as opposed to

the New Testament God.

I mean you better get out of there.

What.

66 books.

Now.

Your point is absolutely correct and very well Clarifies the point that the Old Testament

is just no doubt in Paul's mind Right that all of the Old Testament is inspired

by God.

Go with the inspired scripture that is already established.

Every New Testament book that was sent into the canon.

Was based on whether it was the cohesive whole and not disagree with any of the original

inspired scripture.

Right.

The term your point when all these words.

Yeah.

But he wrote these words before John wrote the Revelation the.

The term scripture simply means Like those scriptures means the

writings.

Like we know we assume when we're talking about it in this context you hear the scriptures.

We're talking about the 66 books of the Bible.

But that term just means the right and there's all sorts of writings out there because you have the Apocrypha.

Which you know the Roman Catholic Church says well those are inspired too.

And that's obviously a difference because we don't believe the Apocrypha is inspired.

But yes, it's I guess it's it's presumed here that it's the 66 books.

I mean, that's that's what we believe.

But there's other writings, but we know the 66 books of the Bible are Inspired by

God and they are profitable for doctrine.

So It's profitable for teaching even the Song of Solomon is profitable for

teaching all of it is.

It's also profitable for reproof.

What's reproof.

Well reproof I Rebuke I think would be another way of putting it

if somebody's Espousing something that's false.

I mean the Bible is Useful to say hey, you're wrong.

And here's what's right?

Yeah, I mean rebuking people is not something that is done a lot these

days, but sometimes people need Especially maybe the false teachers that you

decide.

I mean they needed to be Rebuked so told they're wrong and then the correction

is is what's next and then instruction and righteousness.

There's a statement.

One.

Doctrine is what is right? Reproof what is wrong correction how to make it right

instruction righteousness how to keep it, right?

I Like that.

Yes Marcus.

Yep, yep.

Exhorting to you know.

Motivate people to make urgent appeal to get them to act.

Yep.

Right, well, let's answer the second question.

So we see the claim that the Bible makes for itself.

How does that claim differ? from these skeptical attacks made by the

theological liberals.

Okay, so the Bible says about itself all of it is inspired.

It's God breathed.

How is that different from what the liberals were saying?

Liberals say that you pick and choose parts that are applying to you and the rest you can just leave

it to God.

Right.

Yeah.

I'm glad you brought that up because the way I started in this I listened to the the message on this

by Nathan Professor Nathan here who put the book together.

He said that liberals he just came right out and said and I think I said this they don't

believe the Bible.

Which is a fair statement, but you realize they do believe parts of the Bible.

For example, I heard someone say a week or two ago.

They said Jesus is teaching and I don't really agree with this, but they said Jesus's teachings can be summarized in

two things.

Love God love one another, you know, the the first commandment of the law and the second commandment.

So all of Jesus's teachings can be summarized and love God love your neighbor.

That aside which again, I don't necessarily agree with that.

You can I think you could go up to a agnostic you could go up to even an atheist and

say hey.

What do you think about this statement?

You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

I Bet you a lot of atheists would say yeah, I believe that I think that's good.

People of other religions would say that I think I think a Muslim could probably say love

God love your neighbor as yourself.

I.

Suspect a lot of religious people could affirm that so.

Theological liberals do believe parts of the Bible but yeah, they

basically pick and choose and.

The parts they reject are the parts that are either, you know, either quote -unquote debunked by

science which they're not really debunked or.

Yeah, they make them uncomfortable or you know.

They want to do something.

The Bible says they're not supposed to.

I don't believe that, you know, it's very convenient.

Or it just flies in the face of 20 20th century culture.

21st century culture, right dad.

They won't say that they won't don't believe certain parts of the Bible but they'll say is.

We just don't know.

Yeah.

Yeah, and like I said this there's a scale.

So some of them will be kind of emphatic that that's not true.

This part of the Bible isn't true.

Others will take.

Maybe oh, yeah, I mean, we don't know.

I'm not saying it's not true.

But we just we just don't know so we're not gonna really pay attention because we don't know that

sounds.

It almost sounds noble and humble to say, you know, I'm just not sure.

But if it's a core teaching of Christianity and you're not sure I mean, you probably

shouldn't be behind the pulpit.

I don't know but if you're not sure what.

What's being taught?

Okay, any other comments on the difference between what the Bible says about itself or

theological?

Liberals.

One thing about theological they they do not like they like G.

Here's what I've heard so many times.

They say I like Jesus I love Jesus.

But that Apostle Paul who I they do not like Paul.

Who's heard that?

I mean, that's extremely common.

You know Beth Moore was a popular.

Now I would kind of put her in the liberal.

You know the moderate liberal category not full -blown because she affirms the authority of Scripture.

But she was she posted that one time made a statement that caused a lot of waves.

And had people sort of reassessing whether or not they were supporting her ministry.

I know a church where they took all of her books.

Off the bookshelf after she said something like that, but she said I follow Jesus.

I don't follow Paul and I forget the exact which you know is in theory true like

we are Christians.

We're not followers of Paul.

But in her I forget exactly her wording, but she was basically saying don't quote Paul to

me.

I don't really care what Paul said.

I'm just gonna follow Jesus.

Well, I mean except that Paul wrote the majority of the New Testament.

So, I mean you kind of run into a little problem there.

But yeah.

And there is a verse where Paul says Follow me as

I follow Christ, right?

Yeah, and just to say and I want to be fair to people but I

Don't know if this doesn't occur to them or what but so I I like Jesus.

It's just some of his Apostles.

Yeah,

but.

Right, that's just that's just not what.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Right, yes and people are open, you know, you're more than welcome to ask

questions.

None of us have it all figured out.

But hopefully we're not denying the scripture or we don't have some big issue.

But who's read through the Bible in your life?

You read a passage.

You're like ouch.

That's thought that's convicting me right now or that that's talking about me, right?

Yeah, hello.

That's.

Because we're not understanding something.

It's not because scripture is wrong, right?

Yeah, you ever run across a passage that seems to be contradicting another passage.

I Could answer those questions somewhat.

I'm sure many of you could address those and if we can't there are apologists out there who?

Make their living doing that and they can answer it, but there are answers.

Okay, let's just start this next section.

Princeton theology.

Who sees that.

Okay, so I mean how long is how long ago is this that Princeton was taking a strong stand

for biblical truth.

Wasn't any time recently.

Okay as theological liberalism began to spread in the mid 18th century The Lord

raised up a formidable defense at Princeton Theological Seminary.

Princeton Seminary was started in 1812 by Archibald Alexander who lived from

1772 to 1851 and he served as the school's first chair of

systematic theology.

No notable 19th century faculty members included Charles Hodge

AA Hodge and Benjamin B Warfield, okay, who's

have you heard of these names?

Hodge.

Yeah, BB Warfield that is a pretty well -known figure in later church history.

Charles Hodge lived from 1797 to 1878 and is best known

for the systematic theology that he published in 1872.

A Hodge taught at Princeton for more than 50 years.

During that time. He staunchly defended the Christian faith from attack.

AA Hodge who lived from 1823 to 1886 Was the son of

Charles and was named after Princeton Seminary's first president Archibald

Alexander.

So that's the AA.

He became a professor of systematic theology at Princeton Seminary when his father died in

1878.

He too Defended the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.

Okay, I think this is the first time we've seen this word so it would be a good idea to.

To point this out inerrancy.

Who's heard of this term?

The Bible is.

Inerrant.

Yeah, and the other word that often goes along with it is Bible is infallible, okay, let's define

these terms.

What does it mean?

That something is inerrant.

Without errors.

Without error you agree with that.

Yeah, you've heard.

To air is human, right?

Like air you think of air or error.

So if something is in Errant.

Yeah, you're saying there are no errors.

So we believe that the Bible is without error and

The other term the Bible is not only inerrant, but it's infallible.

So what's the difference between inerrancy and infallibility?

Yeah, one means inerrancy it's not wrong.

Infallibility means it cannot be wrong.

Why can the scripture why can it not be wrong.

Because it's God's Word and God can't be wrong.

Now the one.

Rub in here that I have to Mention because I want people to not have a

simplistic understanding of this and we need to be equipped with this knowledge that is a

Bible translation inerrant and infallible is the

NID and I'm not.

I don't want to pick because no matter what version I pick and someone has that version so.

Whatever I mean.

Someone's gonna be upset about that but Whatever let's pick let's pick something that nobody has the

Amplified Bible.

No one has that one, right is the Amplified Bible

infallible.

Not not see here's the I would say not necessarily because the people at the

publishing house Could make a mistake could be an honest mistake.

Like you heard of the adulterers Bible.

Who's heard of that?

The adulterers by where they yeah, they printed some Bible and just the guy at the printing press putting in the

the letters Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Well, he left out the not so Well, that Bible was fallible.

Okay, but that doesn't mean the original writings of Moses where say so

Printers can make errors, but God's Word is without sorry.

Yes.

Could be typos.

New versions that are coming out like the passion translation.

The guy who put out the passion translation claims that he received revelation from God.

So he's he's putting his own extra words in there because he thinks that God is

Fixing the Greek and giving him additional revelation.

Well, that Bible is not inerrant and infallible and neither is the Jehovah's Witnesses New World

translation.

And I would argue the the the message which is a paraphrase.

It's not even really a translation right and now

Right a paraphrase would not be infallible, but there

all that to say this the the King James New King James even the NIV and ASB like these

are very Reliable there might be one thing here and there that Says could be a scribal

error somewhere in church history, but these are dependable translations and the parts that are in question are

so Miniscule and they really don't it doesn't really change doctrine so you could

argue over This verse or that verse because different translations may be

rendered a different way.

That's not anything that should cause a person to question the authority of Scripture, okay,

you're dismissed.

Thank you.